HP "owning" the software for Xilinx-FTDI drivers???

tirsdag den 27. oktober 2020 kl. 21.31.20 UTC+1 skrev Rick C:

or the FTDI JTAG chip used to program Xilinx parts. Has anyone heard of th is?

ue with HP owning the software for FTDI devices even if that is true? Why would it matter to a user of Xilinx FPGAs???

background of big dollar development and I don't know if there was some so rt of IP ownership issue. I can't see how it would impact us even if there were. I really can't imagine anyone other than FTDI owns the drivers for the FTDI chips, but maybe there's some sort of JTAG software involved.

standard ftdi chips can talk jtag with the standard ftdi driver, you just h ave to make you own code to drive it and it won't work from inside the xilinx t ools

I know digilent has a jtag based on ftdi that works with Xilinx tools and is often part off xilinx boards (redacted from the schematic), it requires something special in the ftdi eeprom to load their driver and software instead of just being an ftdi device, basically to verify that it is a licensed digilent programmer and not just a generic ftdi bought from d igikey

for the FTDI JTAG chip used to program Xilinx parts. Has anyone heard of this?

ssue with HP owning the software for FTDI devices even if that is true? Wh y would it matter to a user of Xilinx FPGAs???

a background of big dollar development and I don't know if there was some sort of IP ownership issue. I can't see how it would impact us even if the re were. I really can't imagine anyone other than FTDI owns the drivers fo r the FTDI chips, but maybe there's some sort of JTAG software involved.

have

tools

Your own code to drive it? That's pretty rad, but I think I understand wha t you are saying.

digikey

I think Trenz has some interface board with the FTDI chip and a small FPGA (not for the user to muck with, but for the module operation) that costs a few bucks more for Xilinx capability. I guess this is what they are talkin g about, something special to work with the Xilinx drivers. I guess Xilinx has some detail they will share under license to add this capability to yo ur boards.

I still have no idea what he is talking about regarding this being "HP" IP. I'm starting to get tired of the guy. He seems to really want to deep si x the Gowin part even though the Xilinx part will cost four times as much a nd take up twice the board space or require more expensive board fabricatio n.

I'm starting to get tired of this guy. I guess this is what to expect from part time help...

onsdag den 28. oktober 2020 kl. 00.19.29 UTC+1 skrev Rick C:

de for the FTDI JTAG chip used to program Xilinx parts. Has anyone heard o f this?

issue with HP owning the software for FTDI devices even if that is true? Why would it matter to a user of Xilinx FPGAs???

om a background of big dollar development and I don't know if there was som e sort of IP ownership issue. I can't see how it would impact us even if t here were. I really can't imagine anyone other than FTDI owns the drivers for the FTDI chips, but maybe there's some sort of JTAG software involved.

st have

nx tools

hat you are saying.

if you just want to configure a part it is pretty straight forward, but if you want to talk to a build in logic analyser, program one time fuses witho ut ruining boards, and all the other things the tools can do I'm sure it ca n get pretty hairy

code for the FTDI JTAG chip used to program Xilinx parts. Has anyone heard of this?

me issue with HP owning the software for FTDI devices even if that is true? Why would it matter to a user of Xilinx FPGAs???

from a background of big dollar development and I don't know if there was s ome sort of IP ownership issue. I can't see how it would impact us even if there were. I really can't imagine anyone other than FTDI owns the driver s for the FTDI chips, but maybe there's some sort of JTAG software involved .

just have

linx tools

what you are saying.

hout ruining boards, and all the other things the tools can do I'm sure it can get pretty hairy

I'm just trying to figure out what this guy was talking about saying that H P owned the software. I would expect either FTDI or Xilinx would own it. He never answered me when I asked why it mattered. I think he is trying to find some reason to nix the approach we are taking with the FPGA on this p roject. He's also seems to be digging to find things with the Gowin chip t hat he can object to. Or maybe I am just being paranoid. I guess I find s ome of his comments weird and don't know what to make of it.

The trouble is we don't have a bunch of funding to pull off this project an d the mechanical engineers have to spend a fair bit on the stainless steel cabinet. So we are trying to get the boards made for free by JLCPCB. We'l l have to assemble the parts they don't carry, but they have offered to mak e some of our boards with the parts they do carry. That's pretty generous. I hope they stick to that when they see the updated board. It's 100x200 mm and will end up pretty full of parts.

@Rick

I can now confirm that a blank FTDI FT2232H chip will work with the Gowin tools and will program a GW1N-9 via JTAG, either SRAM or the on chip Flash.

one resistor to disable the on board eeprom (may not have been necessary).

I blogged a bit about the project here:

There is a bit of explanation and some pictures.

MK

code for the FTDI JTAG chip used to program Xilinx parts. Has anyone heard of this?

me issue with HP owning the software for FTDI devices even if that is true? Why would it matter to a user of Xilinx FPGAs???

from a background of big dollar development and I don't know if there was s ome sort of IP ownership issue. I can't see how it would impact us even if there were. I really can't imagine anyone other than FTDI owns the driver s for the FTDI chips, but maybe there's some sort of JTAG software involved .

just have

ilinx tools

nd what you are saying.

t if

without ruining boards, and all the other things the tools can do I'm sure it can get pretty hairy

at HP owned the software. I would expect either FTDI or Xilinx would own i t. He never answered me when I asked why it mattered. I think he is tryin g to find some reason to nix the approach we are taking with the FPGA on th is project. He's also seems to be digging to find things with the Gowin ch ip that he can object to. Or maybe I am just being paranoid. I guess I fi nd some of his comments weird and don't know what to make of it.

t and the mechanical engineers have to spend a fair bit on the stainless st eel cabinet. So we are trying to get the boards made for free by JLCPCB. We'll have to assemble the parts they don't carry, but they have offered to make some of our boards with the parts they do carry. That's pretty gener ous. I hope they stick to that when they see the updated board. It's 100x

ed

Great! I appreciate the heads up. I think most of the resistance to using the Gowin devices is behind us, but was just asking about "ILA" which I su ppose means the software logic analyzer.

We may have some long logic chains that will have a bit of trouble with 33 MHz, but the in general we are using enables of 1 ms and slower. So timing just should not be an issue except on the timing counters and the bits doi ng some math in the MACs.

I do worry a bit about the poor documentation. This guy found a line that said the dual ported rams don't support true dual port mode in this and a f ew other parts. The contact said that's only in the parts prior to rev C. The docs just aren't up to date or even very accurate. The guides say to instantiate, but there is example code (in Verilog) in one that doesn't mat ch the circuit diagram or even the port signals in the code provided by the IP generator tool.

I ended up writing something pretty generic that should match the semi-dual port which is what I need for this part of the design. It synthesized no problem. I believe to use the -9 parts you need to select -9C. There are some other chips that you specify the C revision too.

So far I'm very pleased that they have someone to answer my stupid question s. He has to contact the mother ship for some of them, but I get answers.. . that I like. First of the year I would have been learning Verilog, lol.